tv Washington Week With Gwen Ifill PBS November 14, 2015 1:30am-2:01am PST
gwen: attacks in paris. politics at home. we cover the week tonight on "washington week." dozens dead. more wounded in paris. >> this is an attack not just on paris. it's an attack not just on the people of france. but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share. >> french borders closed tonight and, again, more questions than answers. back in the states, politics as usual. >> how stupid are the people of iowa? >> trump insults, carson shrugs. >> i have spent that kind of thing. i don't have to get into it. >> as republicans spar over immigration, taxes, foreign policy, and each other. >> ted is a supporter of legalizing people in this
country illegally. >> meanwhile, hillary clinton widens her lead in the condensed democratic field. >> the politics of immigration reform may seem complex, but the economics are pretty straight forward. >> and the three left standing prepare for a weekend debate. covering the week, david sanger, national security correspondent for the "new york times." jeanne cummings, political editor of "the wall street journal." angie drobnic holan, editor of politifact, and reid wilson, chief political correspondent for "morning consult." >> award winning reporting and analysis. covering history as it happens. live from our nation's capital, this is "washington week" with wen ifill. corporate funding is provided by --.
ifill. gwen: good evening. as we go on the air tonight it is early saturday morning in paris where a wave of horrific attacks have placed the country on lockdown. earlier tonight president obama called the terrorism heart breaking. >> obviously those of us here in the united states know what it's like. we've gone through these kinds of episodes ourselves. and whenever these kinds of attacks happened, we've always been able to count on the french people to stand with us. they have been an extraordinary counterterrorism partner. and we intend to be -- bear with them in that same fashion. gwen: it feels like these friday the 13th attacks came out of the blue yet it makes us think back to the charlie hebdo attack. how is this similar? we know it's in paris. how is it different, david? >> other than the fact it is in paris it seems more different than the same. it reminds me if anything of those attacks in mumbai, india, in 2008 because of the highly
coordinated nature of this. now, we don't know all of the details at this hour but it looks like there were at least six or seven simultaneous attacks and that suggests that it was highly coordinated and probably that the attackers had to engage in some fairly intense training. if the big question is going to be going forward, did that training happen outside of france? could it have happened in syria? could it have happened in iraq? and if so, it could raise the level of the conflict in the middle east to a very different plateau. >> in terms of bloodshed what also comes to mind is the attacks, the rail attacks in spain in 2004, and also the attacks, the school attacks in russia. they were also hundreds, more than we've heard so far, of casualties. thinking back to those attacks are there similarities there? >> there certainly are. of course, each one of these
attacks becomes an inspiration and i terror groups think there are elements of the russian attacks which were chechen in origin, there are elements certainly of what you saw in spain and what you saw in london in 2005. but the scale of this, where at this hour the "new york times" is reporting, quoting the police as in france as saying over 100 dead. perhaps in that theater alone. that would take you more toward the scale of the russia attack or mumbai. and, you know, that's so much bigger than what we saw happen in charlie hebdo. but i think the other question this raises right now is if this is in fact the great nflict of our time, of extremism, is it even possible to fight it when so much of it
is right in among the opulation? in both britain and france we know of hundreds of people, thousands in some cases, who have joined the fight with isis and other extremist groups and then of course who have the pass ports to come back into europe. >> david, we talked about the coordination that's going on in the france attacks, but if you look at the week or the last two weeks, you have the russian plane. you have the beirut bombs that also went off simultaneously. and this. do you think, you know, is that pattern relevant? >> it could be if in fact it turns out that this was coordinated isis or coordinated al qaeda. if you ask three or four months ago to counterterrorism experts they would tell you isis so has its hands full in trying to deal with holding on to
terrory in syria, especially now with a counterattack that began just 24 hours ago, to cut the road, and of course that's dealing with the iraq part of isis, that people didn't think they had the band width. >> didn't the president just say today tha it was under control? >> well, what he said was it was contained. >> contained, yes. >> to iraq and syria. we don't know that this is isis. and, you know, sometimes with the groups that seem to have some allegiance it's not clear what the connection is and it's also not clear what the coordination is. we all think back to 9/11, where there was clear coordination out of al qaeda central in pakistan and afghanistan at the time. but in this case, we're not sure, this could just be sympathizers. if so, they were very well
coordinated and organized sympathizers. >> david, charlie hebdo wasn't even the first attack in france in recent years there but attacks on jewish targets in the south of france on the train in france where three americans tackled a gunman. why is it that france is at the epicenter of all these attacks in europe? >> france, like germany, 9/11 was flande hamburg so you could have said why germany? each of these major centers have significant immigrant populations, significant muslim populations, where there is a small segment that gets radicalized and that's been the very hard part to ferret out. of course the fact that europe now has open and free borders means it's that much easier to move across. >> when the president says as he did tonight we will stand by to help in any way possible, what does that mean at this stage? do we know? >> you know, the evidence for this i think when -- may have come just hours before this when you saw arone strike on
a target that they thought was jihaddy john. the executioner for isis. he is -- he was a british citizen. we don't know for certain that he's dead but most defense officials seem to think that they actually got him. and that was the case of the u.s. and britain working very closely on theounterterrorism side to identify where he was. >> okay. so we'll see if we can do the same thing. again, thank you very much, david. there is quite a bit else to sort through tonight. we'll start with last night's remarkable donald trump speech during which he called one opponent weak. he questioned another's religious conversion. and he said of isis, i would bomb those suckers. he said more that i can't actually repeat on television but here is a bit of his ben carson critique. >> so he's a pathological,
abrupt. temper give me a break. >> he also compared him to child molesters. carson in his normal, calm tone replied today. >> that's not the kind of dialogue i would ever engage in. and i'm hopeful that maybe his advisers will help him to understand the word pathological. and recognize that that does not denote incurable. it's not the same. it's simply an adjective that describes something that is highly abnormal. and something that, fortunately, i've been able to be delivered from for a half a century now. >> i've never seen anyone respond so calmly to being called that many names in one speech but that's who ben
carson is. what is going on? >> well, basically donald trump and ben carson are neck and neck. national polls, carson is inching ahead in iowa. and this is trump's way of trying to take him out. we -- "the wall street journal" had an interview with trump tonight where we asked, do you regret any of it? he said not only does he not regret it, everyone agrees with him. we asked him even about seeming to call iowa voters stupid. >> that's the word he used. >> of course he says we all misinterpreted it. it was just a question. so he's not backing down. that is directly a result of those poll numbers. it's interesting because the republican primary is becoming kind of two races. we talked about this. we got the outsiders and the insiders. on the insiders it's becoming
more of a cruz-rubio fight. and the two of them have had this parallel exchange over immigration where they're sniping. >> i want to get to that but first, during the debate, and angie, i'm going to ask you about this, he had something to say, everybody had something to say this week about immigration but this was trump's latest, aside from building a wall, his latest idea. >> let me just tell you that dwight eisenhower, good president, great president, people liked him, i like ike, right, the expression. i like ike. moved a million and a half illegal immigrants out of this country. moved them just beyond the border. they came back. moved them way south. they never came back. >> people think we are going to shift 11 million people who are law-abiding who are in this country and somehow pick them up at their house and ship them out to mexico? think about the families.
think about the children. >> okay, angie. you work for politifact. check that fact. >> we did fact check his recounting of the eisenhower years. we rated it half true. it wasn't nearly as many as he claimed over a million. the actual numbers were around 250,000. it was a crovegs program. it wasn't just i like ike and everything was fine. it got a lot of attention t also went along with a guest worker program so they were opening up more opportunities for immigration. so his history lesson is somewhat flawed. >> reid, it's interesting to see republicans fighting about immigration. because at least now at this juncture. why now? >> because we're getting into the real part of the campaign. we're getting past the part where they introduce themselves at barbecues in iowa and to the part where they have to differentiate themselves becaus iowa voters and new hampshire voters are starting to tune in. one of the very few real places
within the republican party where there is a skism is on immigration. jeanne mentioned the sort of dual track campaign we're seeing. on one hand folks like donald trump and ted cruz playing to the activist base that feels very strongly against a path to citizenship. on the other hand you have people like john kasich of ohio and jeb bush the former governor of florida both of whom are more open to a path to allowing workers into the u.s. i mean, this is the activist republican party against the chamber of commerce republican party. >> there are two latinos in the race. ted cruz and marco rubio and they're at logger heads right now. at one point it seemed they agreed with each other. >> well, it depends on what the definition is, right? they split words. they split hairs on these things. but the simple facts are that rubio voted for the immigration overall in the senate and cruz voted against it.
you raise them and they are an interesting story, both 44. they're both first-time senators who weren't bothering to finish their terms. they're both cuban americans. but they tell their immigrant story for very different reasons. rubio is fluent in spanish. he tells his story to connect with hispanic voters. cruz tells his story in english because he's not a very good spanish speaker and he talks about how his father was an alcoholic, left them after they got into the u.s., found god, and came back. and was a good father. it's an evangelical story. they talk right to their bases. >> except cruz used to say he was against birth right citizenship and now decided it's okay. >> what struck me most about -- >> not okay. >> -- the last 48 hours or so is that these two candidates particularly both of whom are rising in the polls and finally establishing themselves as potential top tier candidates,
have gone after each other on these very specific elements of actual immigration reform. cruz has been attacked on his h 1 b visa program proposals. rubio has been attacked for his gang abeat membership. they have both been very ready for those attacks and it tells me how much they all knew immigration was going to be a determine nat issue in this primary. >> at this stage at least they're all arguing about who is more conservative. we saw this on the debate stage this week involving rand paul and marco >> i do want to rebuild the american military. i know rand is a committed isolationist. i am not. i believe the world is a stronger and better place when the united states is the strongest military power in the world. >> marco, marco. how is it conservative to add a trillion dollar expenditure for the federal government that you're not paying for? >> angie, what's true? >> you know, we gave rand paul mostly true on his attack.
he is essentially correct that that rubio is proposing a large tax credit program. it would come out to about a trillion dollars over 10 years. he also advocates more funding for the military. roughly a trillion dollars over 10 years. now, rand paul called the tax credit the welfare program, which is inflammatory and you can argue with it. but on the numbers, he's pretty spot on. it was a real moment i thought in the debate where they were talking about what is the real issue here? how can they pay for tax credits and more military spending? it doesn't add up. >> it doesn't add up. >> you know what struck me about this was that it's not the real debate about military buildup that either the country is having among at least those who pay a lot of attention to the military or even that the republicans themselves have engaged in in congress. the question isn't whether or not the budget is big enough. the budget is, military budget at this point is probably larger than about the next 10
countries counted together. the question is, are we spending it in the right way? do we need all of the old cold war systems? could you actually spend less and have more against the threats you're up against? what i find pretty remarkable is that they're sort of stuck in this kind of cold war argument. about where just the overall number. and i thought republicans had by and large moved past that even during the bush administration when bob gates was out making this --. >> it is clearly a different kind of campaign. in the middle of it all is jeb bush who is trying to say if you want someone to be the next president, someone who can beat hillary clinton what you really want is someone with a little experience. this is jeb bush. >> we need to start thinking about who is the person that can beat hillary clinton rather than trying to get into small differences betweendi each campaign. the big difference is hillary clinton will double down on a failed economic policy and i have leadership skills to fix these complex things and allow people to rise up again.
>> so jeb bush had a better debate. he did not have a great debate. but he did calm his donor base. they were relieved. he was a little more aggressive. when kasich tried to cut in line on the questions he said, no. it's my turn. >> and carly fiorina tried to cut in line, donald trump said, why does she keep interrupting? >> so, you know, they feel as though they've sort of stablized the situation. however, when you look at the reactions, there is a big summit going on down in florida right now. so home state. and the crowds react to cruz. more so than even rubio and definitely even more so than bush. >> i don't want to leave the democrats out of this conversation. it's really interesting to me how the main stream as you just saw, jeb bush, the main stream democrats, insider democrats are responding to hillary clinton, clear front-runner, as
opposed to how main stream republicans are responding to their outsider front-runners. >> i think what that tells you is that the republican party remains in much more upheaval than the democratic party does. i think there are many different competing factions on the republican side whether it's the chamber of commerce or the activist class on immigration or the religious right or any of these factions that are vying for some kind of control. in the democratic side it's much more of a sort of binary contest between what i would broadly call the clinton wing of the party and the elizabeth warren wing of the party. >> bernie sanders will be writing you about that. he sees it the other way. >> of course. it is very clear hillary clinton is moving toward the one wing of the party and adopting some key elements of that platform. i note by the way that tomorrow night at their debate in iowa it is going to be on tv opposite the university of iowa's game against the university of minnesota. the university of iowa is undefeated this year. how many iowans are really going to tune in on a saturday
night to watch a game opposite their favorite football teams? >> i hadn't even thought of the football part. >> gwen, the democratic debate the one we've seen so far is very different from the republican debate. they're not scrappy. they're very woveragey. they're talking about all their policy details. they seem to agree more than they disagree. >> one wants $12 for minimum wage and one wants $15. that is a $3 difference and could be huge. >> fact checking the two debates is very different. >> tell me how. >> the democrats are really into policy details. there's a lot of agreefment. the republicans have some major philosophical disagreements. like the trump speech for example. he seems to speak off the cuff. -- esn't seem to have >> i think we can establish it is off the cuff. >> in common language he talks trash. he doesn't seem to be using any kind of briefing books. we're seeing a lot to fact check on the republican side because it's more raucous.
>> this could change on saturday. >> this could change. >> bernie is under so much pressure to stop hillary's inevitabilityy. >> there was a lot of policy on the table in this week's republican debate. one is the big, bad china. ben carson says china has boots on the ground in syria. donald trump was talking about china having to do with trade. okay. did any of that hold up? is china involved -- i mean, china is involved in a lot of stuff. >> china is involved in a lot of stuff and there was particularly in the under card debate a lot of interesting discussion about china and cyber attacks. but so far in my coverage of syria i have not heard china come up once in terms of boots on the ground. >> carson says he is going to release documents. >> did he say boots on the ground? >> he said -- >> the context certainly made you think he was talking about a military presence. >> i'm not sure he used those words.
as one person in our office pointed out there are a lot of chinese people out there. some of them could be in syria. >> you could well have had contractors in the region and certainly you do elsewhere in thehe middle east. but when you got to the trade discussion, that was really fascinating because donald trump went off and discussed the trans pacific partnership as basically a large chinese plot to work their way around us. until it was pointed out to him that the chinese are the outsiders. they're not a signatory to the trans pacific partnership. >> by rand paul. >> and this actually seemed to number objection him for a moment. this seemed to flummox him for a moment. >> details generally do. >> one more question. right now polls. looks like the republicans are frozen in place. however the gap is widening between the two leading democrats. >> i think we see clear movement on the republican side. there is a separation between the first tier and the second tier. the first tier you have to talk about donald trump, ben carson, ted cruz, marco rubio, and jeb
bush. pretty much everybody else has fallen below about 5% of the poll. both in morning consult surveys and in the rest of the country, sort of polling universe. on the democratic side we've seen hillary clinton north of 50%, below about 60. bernie sanders somewhere trading in the mid 20's to low 30's range. that's been pretty stagnant for the last month and a half. >> and whether it's a debate or anything else that could change that a lot before the holidays. we'll see. thank you, everybody. we have to go. but as always the conversation will continue online where among other things we will update the fallout from those paris attacks. catch that and more on the washington week webcast extra later tonight and all week long at pbs.org/washington week. but before we go, we also have a little more to share. a lot here happens behind the scenes. one member of our team was jamey kendall whom we lost
yesterday. jamey was married to our great production manager and devoted much of her life to promoting employment opportunities for people with disabilities. we sent washington week condolences to tim and to his family. great guy. great woman. keep up with developments with me and judy woodruff at the pbs newshour. we'll see you here next week on "washington week." good night. >> we're committed to strong.
♪ ♪ good evening and welcome to kqed newsroom. on tooth's show, the man known as shrimp boy. cooking with crickets and electronic art. we begin with gloria steinem and the governor's race, i'm joined by my colleague, scott schaeffer, he's been with us since the show launched two years ago and now is the new senior editor of our politics and government desk. so nice to have you back. >> good to be here. >> let's talk politics. this week gloria steinem and other prominent feminists, warned publiclyli comptroller n to run in 2018, why a